So, has it been established that the Author not the Agent that the Author
is suing for not properly representing her interests, is the one who has
decided not to accept epublishing offers? I thought that it was the Agent's
turning down such an offer, and the publisher mentioning it to the author,
that sparked the lawsuit.

Luck;
Ken

I don't know. I was referring to the general principle that it's the copyright holder's decision to make, whether or not we agree, rather than to this specific case. From what's been said, it sounds as if it was the agent.

So, has it been established that the Author not the Agent that the Author
is suing for not properly representing her interests, is the one who has
decided not to accept epublishing offers? I thought that it was the Agent's
turning down such an offer, and the publisher mentioning it to the author,
that sparked the lawsuit.

Luck;
Ken

That is how the reuters article reads.
Apparently, when she heard the HC offer, she was moved to find out what was going on.

I can't find any direct evidence on what sparked the lawsuit, although it seems to be about money.

You can find a statement in my link, as in the Reuters article, about the eBook rights, and your interpretation is plausible. But, personally, I consider the lawsuit text as coming from the lawyers, not from the client. The plaintiff attorneys want to show that the damages are as high as possible, so they are going to mention the biggest source of forgone subsidiary rights income -- the eBook. This isn't the same as Ms. Lee making a statement that she would release an eBook if allowed. YMMV.

I don't know. I was referring to the general principle that it's the copyright holder's decision to make, whether or not we agree, rather than to this specific case. From what's been said, it sounds as if it was the agent.

In the U.S., the essence of copyright law is not "protection of the author's interests" but "encouragement of the development of ideas for the public." Giving the author a lot of control over the use of their works is a means to that end; it's not the goal in itself.

Freedom of speech clashes directly with copyright law, and the right to share ideas one finds interesting--in any format one wishes--is only to be mitigated by a strong public need. "Authors should make more money" is not a strong public need*, but "Authors should be willing to make their works public" is.

I agree with the logic that says authors should have control over a lot of the uses of their works, in order to encourage them to publish. (I disagree with the current time limits, but that's a different issue.) However, I don't agree that that control should extend to "people of [x] category should not be reading my works." And that includes "people who prefer to read on a screen instead of paper" in addition to "people who aren't able to read books on paper.

If they publish, they should be able to exploit the market; that's not the same as "they should be allowed to stifle any markets they disagree with," any more than they can legitimately disallow critique of their works, or study of them in a classroom.

*Why should authors have more right to control the use of their works than, for example, auto manufacturers? Certainly if they were allowed to dictate when and where people could drive, they could make a lot more money selling weekend-only cars vs full-use cars. They could make a lot more money if you had to pay them based on how many miles you drive. Getting money to any particular creator is not a valid reason to curtail other people's use of what they've purchased or learned.

You'd be guessing wrong.
And since the discussion is senior citizen access to the book, many of who were out of school when it was first published, it is rather irrelevant how many pimply faced teens dozed through english class with their noses in it.

No, the discussion was the availability electronically, and I was attempting to make the point that the lack of an e-book is certainly NOT hurting the sales of To Kill a Mockingbird.

And I think Steve was trying to make the point that just because the relevant quote related to a minor part of the world, it didn't apply to the majority of the world which isn't covered by the US Constitiution...

And I think Steve was trying to make the point that just because the relevant quote related to a minor part of the world, it didn't apply to the majority of the world which isn't covered by the US Constitiution...

And yet, Harry's statement is just taken as a given, coming from a little island.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see how an ebook adds much for people with disabilities over and above what a large print paper book (available) or audio book (available) already provide.

Yes, it may not be a wise choice on her part to miss out on sales of ebook version that would not otherwise occur in other formats. That is her choice though. That and I don't think Lee need worry about her book not being read.

Perk up though yea who have been waiting for an ebook before reading this great book. Shortly before Ray Bradbury died he relented on that issue and many of his books are now available as ebooks. That and once Harper Lee dies whomever copyright is transferred to may allow ebooks to be sold.

I have a spinal cord injury that makes my upper body very weak. It is impossible for me to pick up a medium size hardcover book. Even lighter weight books are a problem for me because it is difficult to turn the pages. Audio books are OK as long as someone sets up all the equipment for me, but I try to be as independent as possible.

I also happen to know Mrs Lee quite well and while I can't speak for her, to say that she has little use for computers and digital technology is a vast understatement. This is her right as a human being and as an author. She is a remarkable woman.

I also happen to know Mrs Lee quite well and while I can't speak for her, to say that she has little use for computers and digital technology is a vast understatement. This is her right as a human being and as an author. She is a remarkable woman.

Mrs Lee? She has never married, according to all the biographical information I can find on her.

I have a spinal cord injury that makes my upper body very weak. It is impossible for me to pick up a medium size hardcover book. Even lighter weight books are a problem for me because it is difficult to turn the pages. Audio books are OK as long as someone sets up all the equipment for me, but I try to be as independent as possible.

I also happen to know Mrs Lee quite well and while I can't speak for her, to say that she has little use for computers and digital technology is a vast understatement. This is her right as a human being and as an author. She is a remarkable woman.

It's also the right of people to complain about the book not being available as an e-book.

The above was written about four months before the Sony Reader was released, but there's no evidence she has changed her mind.

I've said that copyright is too long, but I still support it. If the author wants to make his or her book hard to obtain, or hard to read, I disagree, but would allow it.

I've seen various others react in similar ways (defending the love of "real" books), for example Bradbury. What I haven't seen is someone point out the equally real accessibility issues, such has those raised in this thread, and what their response was.

Sure, I've met some real prickly authors in my day, but I can't imagine too many (at least publicly), after having been asked the question about allowing ebooks in that context, saying, "f**K the disabled. I like real, printed books. End of discussion."

Many would probably give a vague, "hmm ...that is something new I have to consider." But many would also probably agree, at least in principle, that their works should be accessible. What that would mean practically in the long run is anyone's guess.

Has anyone seen/heard of an author's reaction to the ebook question within an accessibility for disabilities context? I would be interested to see examples.

In response to a 1975 request from the National Library for the Blind for permission to make use of The Man in the High Castle, Dick responded, "I also grant you a general permission to transcribe any of my former, present or future work, so indeed you can add my name to your 'general permission' list."

This pre-dated ebooks, but I've seen the general attitude expressed by other authors. One of the few good things the DCMA did was add a general exception to copyright control for making accessible content. The only company I've worked with that uses this exception is Benetech. They run bookshare.org.